Comments

Will those who support being able to marry whomever you love also allow those to
love and marry more than one? Remember when Mormons in Utah first had the
'rules of marriage' forced on them?

KaladinNorthern, CO

June 30, 2014 12:00 p.m.

@enfantanongrata - What in the world are you talking about? The LDS Church is
not against adoption in any way shape or form. My dad and his siblings were
adopted and never had any sort of lower standing in the Church because of it.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about

RBBSandy, UT

June 29, 2014 11:15 p.m.

I think the Church could see the writing on the wall long before most. It is
not just about a gay couple being able to marry. (Honestly who cares?) It is
about a gay couple being able to force others to participate in an event
celebrating conduct which most major religions believe to be sinful. They will
use the power of the state through anti-discrimination policies which are always
applied in one direction. They can discriminate - we cannot.

In
the UK an American minister was arrested for teaching that homosexuality if a
sin. Bakers and photographers have been successfully sued for refusing to
participate in gay marriages. There are even decisions against churches now for
refusing to allow their property to be used for gay marriages because such
marriages violate the teachings of that church.

In this country we
have lost the right to not participate in something we find morally
objectionable. The state can force us to participate at the cost of losing our
businesses, property, etc. The left can force us to do what they think is
right. Sounds like a plan I once heard about. I am sure they came from the
same play book.

Gregg WeberSEATTLE, WA

June 29, 2014 11:09 a.m.

Someone says that a dog's tail is now a leg.How many legs does the
dog have?What is the authority for that person to say that?What is
the highest authority in that matter?What is that highest authority say
about that matter?When these can be answered in relation to this question
then the matter will be basically settled.

coltakashiRichland, WA

June 28, 2014 5:14 p.m.

Judges who claim that the Congress and state legislatures who created the 14th
Amenment were contemplating overturning state constitutions upholding
traditional marriage as the only form that would be recognized, are lying to us.
They certainly did not see the 14th Amendment as overturning laws prohibiting
polygamy, even though polygamy is a form of marriage that has been in continuous
observance for thousands of years, including among the people who are honored in
the Christian Bible as examples of godliness. That was made clear in US v
Reynolds. How then could the 14th Amendment have intended to override state
constitutions that drew the same line?

This ruling is profoundly an
action of oligarchy overriding democracy. When judges depart from the law and
claim power to throw out democracy, they have acted unlawfully, and we do not
owe them obedience when they do so. Judges are not the guardians of democracy.
The people are. The 10th Circuit has announced that government of the people by
the people has now perished from the earth.

Kevin J. KirkhamSalt Lake City, UT

June 27, 2014 11:43 p.m.

HENELSONI agree with the thinking of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
Paul J. Kelly Jr who dissented - he stood in defense of state rights. He wrote:
"If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to
recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and
representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head,"
he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood
to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the
best way to do this is inevitable."

KJKHow about this
version – "If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring
every state to recognize MIXED RACE unions — contrary to the views of its
electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on
its head," he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution
commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states
sincerely differ about the best way to do this is inevitable."

I
guess Judge Kelly has some doubts about the Loving decision too. The South
would have agreed with the latter version wholeheartedly. How is the logic and
therefore the conclusion different between the two?

David Lloyd-JonesToronto, 00

June 27, 2014 11:39 p.m.

The Church's statement expresses the hope that the Supreme Court will
"uphold" traditional marriage.

Nobody is questioning or
attacking traditional marriage.

Thus "the Church," i.e.
whoever crafted this rather foolish statement, is wrong to suggest by
implication and misdirection that anyone is.

-dlj.

YorkshireCity, Ut

June 27, 2014 9:09 p.m.

Eagle 78 said: "Politics should NOT be influenced by religious
beliefs....Keep your practices, and beliefs to yourselves which is where they
belong."

Can't the very same be said about gays, lesbians
and SSM??

Politics should not be influenced by LGBT beliefs....Keep
your practices and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong.

BeneditoBeijing, PRC, 00

June 27, 2014 5:36 p.m.

The problem is wider and deeper. Regulations and laws upholding such "same
sex 'marriages'" actually mean the dilution and even extinction of
the family, as defined. It also means further "advancements" in the near
future, as soon as the growing generation passively accepts such unions. There
will come other promiscuous arrangements, group marriages, marriages between
humans and animals, etc., etc. It is part of a plan, which has been carefully
engendered and activated for some 100 years now. As it comes in homeopathic
doses, we tend to accept it as natural evolution of society. Well, we all know
how the story will end, right?

my_two_cents_worthuniversity place, WA

June 27, 2014 5:13 p.m.

@zmillion2

"Government only has a hand in marriage because they
want to make money."

Evidence to support this please.

"But marriage was not created by governments."

Marriage was
not created, it pretty much happened on it's own. It has, over the
centuries evolved from a strictly private/family thing to being recognized as a
value to society by both churches and governments. It is managed and regulated
by governments now, though.

"It was created by God"

Which ones?

ExTBirdSpringville, US-UT

June 27, 2014 4:50 p.m.

I'm not sure how often it has to be pointed out, but it has been addressed
already by the law why things like incest, beastiality, pedophilia etc are not
the same as SSM. Continuing to try and put them into the same category not only
shows ignorance of the law itself, but also shows just how much scorn you really
have for people who are not like you.

There are logical reasons to
prevent the above mentioned acts. There has never, and will never be a logical
reason why SSM should be made illegal. Saying "God doesn't
approve" is the same thing as saying "Santa doesn't
approve".

The only thing this does open the door for is polygamy.
Though not the type that Warren Jeffs practiced. Trying to marry off 14 year
old girls is going to get you thrown in prison. If everyone involved is a
consenting adult, and the children produced are being taken care of? Again I
say... stay out of other peoples lives. You have no business enforcing your
will on others. Look out for yours and let other people do the same.

AdJoRoKearns, UT

June 27, 2014 4:25 p.m.

@Mormonmama0106

"God made me bi-polar. Does that mean I'm
allowed to act on my impulsive anger and claim I can't help it because
I'm bi-polar and God must want me to be this way because I was born this
way? Of course not!"

You're absolutely right - because
acting on your impulsive anger can cause harm to others. Someone acting on
their homosexual desires causes harm to no one.

Who are you to say
being homosexual is an "urge" that needs to be "overcome"? One
acting on their homosexual desires is no different than you acting on your
(presumably) heterosexual desires.

Love is love! Why squelch
something that only creates joy?

Harrison BergeronHolladay , UT

June 27, 2014 2:17 p.m.

Once we accept redefining marriage based on one atypical sexual practice, there
is no legitimate reason not to extend it to others (i.e. Pederasty, Polygamy,
etc.)

If the Courts believe the States cannot refuse to recognize
marriages based on gender, it logically follows that States cannot discriminate
based on age or the number of participants either.

They have opened
Pandora's Box. I hope the Supreme Court slams it shut.

SchneeSalt Lake City, UT

June 27, 2014 12:21 p.m.

@Texann"Living in the latter days isn't for sissies, and we know
it's going to get worse"

Oh yeah, these days are what's
rough... not the time of slavery and life expectancies in the 40s or when women
were basically property of men or any of the host of other times in human
existence or even other countries in the world today...

GeoManSALEM, OR

June 27, 2014 12:04 p.m.

YBH,Reading the 10th Circuit's feeble attempt at explaining does
nothing. Nor do any of the several other recent decisions. They all boil down
to personal opinions and flawed logic to try and support their language that
limits the extension of their rulings to similar issues. The same can be
truthfully said of recent conservative rulings on other issues. If one
dismisses the existence of a higher, moral law (that can be somehow discovered,
i.e self evident truths), and the collective wisdom of human experience, then
one is left with baseless, arbitrary, individual opinions. One is free to
believe such a reality is acceptable, but one should have the intellectual
honesty to acknowledge that. Attempts to elevate personal opinions to some
higher status are just offensive. Societies are free choose policies. Just
don't try and vilify those that oppose the changes because they honestly
believe they will produce negative results for everyone. There is a lot of real
estate between approval and persecution (from both sides of any issue).

Lilly Munsternetherlands, 00

June 27, 2014 11:57 a.m.

Of course, NO Church, Religion, Denomination or any Clergy member actually
Marries anyone, ever. You get you marriage license from the State, not your
Minister. You pay the State, they register it, just like any other License,
and you are married. No Clergy is ever required. Thankfully, we do not leave
Marriage up to any prevailing Clerical Majority, or we would need a Priest in
Sacramento, or an Imam in Dearborn. Marriage is a Constitutional Right. If you
have a problem with that, keep it to yourself. Actually, Mormonism, always a
Crusade for Members, would be smart to keep their Gay and Lesbian Children in
the Fold, rather than brutally shunning them and casting them aside.

Mormonmama0106Phoenix, AZ

June 27, 2014 11:37 a.m.

God made me bi-polar. Does that mean I'm allowed to act on my impulsive
anger and claim I can't help it because I'm bi-polar and God must want
me to be this way because I was born this way? Of course not!

We
human beings are meant to control and overcome our natural urges, not give in to
them. Just as with abortion, no matter what the secular law allows, somethings
are and always will be against God's laws. Wrong is never right, no matter
how many people say it is.

TexannMidlothian, TX

June 27, 2014 10:37 a.m.

Living in the latter days isn't for sissies, and we know it's going to
get worse. Hold to the iron rod.

CDLLos Angeles, CA

June 27, 2014 9:32 a.m.

Civil Ceremonies will become the out come of this as in some other countries.
All people will need to seek Civil Ceremonies first to avoid legal issues over
Churches that don't acquiesce to marring gay couples (Judges will make a
fortune). Then those that want to marry in the Church can have a separate
ceremony, In the LDS Church it would be the Temple.

GDSyracuse, UT

June 27, 2014 7:47 a.m.

I think it has nothing to do with judging.

Brahmabullsandy, ut

June 27, 2014 7:07 a.m.

It strikes me as odd that the Mormon church, who was persecuted and driven out
for allowing non-traditional marriages (polygamy) are now standing against other
people doing what they feel is right. They are doing exactly what was done to
them back when polygamy was going, and that is trying to define marriage for
others.

Good-HeavensSalt Lake City, Utah

June 27, 2014 12:32 a.m.

LDS Church releases official statement against SSM. What a shocker!

zmillion2West Jordan, UT

June 26, 2014 11:18 p.m.

@my_two_cents_worth

While you're right that the states own
marriage. You're missing my point. Government only has a hand in marriage
because they want to make money. But marriage was not created by governments. It
was created by God, and used in religion for a long time before government
decided it belonged to them. THAT is my point.

The ScientistProvo, UT

June 26, 2014 9:41 p.m.

"This ruling does not force Churches to accept same sex marriages..."

That's too bad. It should.

Good MojoTooele, UT

June 26, 2014 9:30 p.m.

Confusion is becoming a national norm enforced by law.

abtrumpetProvo, UT

June 26, 2014 6:23 p.m.

Kindred, thank you for stating the truth.

JimmyJackJohnJonesJonestown, TX

June 26, 2014 4:11 p.m.

Quoting scripture in a newspaper comment section is the cheesiest thing
I've ever seen. It doesn't lend credibility, it makes people sound
like nut jobs, disconnected from reality. It's like showing up at a science
fair with a replica of Noah;'s Ark, or a diorama of the Garden of Eden.
Seriously.

John LockeIvins, , UT

June 26, 2014 3:55 p.m.

IMO, the ultimate "legal" issue for the LDS Church will be whether they
will allow the sealing of such marriages in the temple.

In the case
of a same sex couple becoming married to one another in a state which allows it,
while regularly attending Church, and being temple recommend holders at the time
they were married, what would the Church do? Personally, I believe, and would
concur, that they would not allow this to happen.

The doctrine of
the Church (not "policy") will either have to change through revelation,
as in the case of Blacks receiving the priesthood, or the Church will have to
enforce the doctrine with the possible result of a law suit that will overturn
this precious right now existing for the true definition of the
"Family," as being a marriage between a man and a woman.

For
LDS people, this is an extremely difficult question; similar, to Sharia Law now
in limited use in England. The Brits are struggling with utilizing
"limited" Sharia Family Law Courts for disputes for Muslims, where it
does not conflict with or affect English Law.

my_two_cents_worthuniversity place, WA

June 26, 2014 3:46 p.m.

@zmillion2,

"Marriage is a religious institution, always has been
and always will be. I'm surprised that atheist's and same sex couples
would even want to take part in a ceremony that is so religious."

Not the least bit true. The state owns marriage. One cannot be married
anywhere in the US without the states blessing. Religious wedding ceremonies are
performed at the will of and with the permission of the states. A religious
wedding without a state marriage license is not a marriage. I am a married
atheist who married in city hall 32 years ago. Rest assured, my marriage is
just as legal as any other.

Patriot JimWest Valley City, UT

June 26, 2014 3:38 p.m.

I saw a comment about the 14th Amendment in one of the remarks. Apparently they
do not know that the Utah Supreme Court has ruled the 14th Amendment is
Unconstitutional and has no effect ore power in the State of Utah. The reason
for the ruling is that the US Congress sent the Amendment out to the States for
ratification and the Southern States said "NO!!" So Congress declared
Martial Law in those States and replaced the lawfully elected Legislators with
what are called "Rump" Legislators, who then ratified the Amendment.
These people did not speak for the Citizens of those States and therefore their
actions are null and void. That is why the Utah Supreme Court ruled the way
they did. Also, Judge Perez of Louisiana ruled the 14th Amendment to be
Unconstitutional and Representative Rarick of Louisiana posted all of this in
the Congressional Record. All of this information can be found at
www.constitutionalconcepts.org and click on the link to the 14th Amendment.

YBHSugarland, TX

June 26, 2014 3:00 p.m.

@Miss Piggie and @GeoMan

You can read the 10th circuit court
decision, the ruling explained why it is constitutional right for same sex
couples to marry, and specifically explained why it is not the same case for
polygamy, incestuous and child marriage kind of thing.

@RedShirtCalTech

Maudine is right. If Methodist Church opens its
facility to general public for tax exempt considerations, then they have to
abide laws for general public, including non-discrimination law, like all other
organizations.

If they don't care about the tax exempt and keep
their facility private, of course they can pick and choose, because no
non-discrimination law is applied.

GeoManSALEM, OR

June 26, 2014 2:49 p.m.

Maudine, you miss my point. Yes, there is developmental science about changes
in the physiology of human beings as they age. The point is that what social
policies we choose to establish based on the objective science are another issue
altogether. There is absolutely nothing in the developmental science that says
early teens and pre-teens can't marry (in fact in some societies they do
and I'm referring to teens marrying teens). You may interpret the
objective science so as to arrive at such a conclusion, but the science
doesn't intrinsically produce a social policy.As to your compelling
proof statement, I disagree. It is obvious to me that there is compelling proof
that same-sex marriage is bad for society. The fact that you, or some judges,
don't find it obvious doesn't make one opinion or the other more or
less correct. Unquestionably, it does establish one opinion as the (immoral)
law of the land. If you reduce this to nothing more than opinions, you
can't take something like an age of consent as being "obvious" or
as a "given."

Miss PiggiePhoenix, AZ

June 26, 2014 2:14 p.m.

SlopJ30"I do not support on any level a state passing or enforcing
laws that infringe on any US citizen's rights to choose whom they
marry."

I agree with you. Everyone should be able to marry
whomever they wish... a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, father, mother, first
cousin, and perhaps a sub-teen... or all of them at the same time.

I
am happy to see that the day of rejoicing and equal protection has finally
arrived.

Frozen FractalsSalt Lake City, UT

June 26, 2014 2:10 p.m.

@rw123"Some recommend that The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day-Saints should change its views as a strategic move."

Well, I think there is one option. Considering all the court rulings in favor
of same-sex marriage and the church article of faith about upholding the law, it
should be simple for the church to change it's position on same-sex
marriage with regards to those outside the faith, while maintaining their
viewpoint inside the church (it'd be something like 'we don't
approve of same-sex marriage, but we're not going to stop you from getting
one in other churches or civil marriages'). While that could be considered
a "strategic move" I don't feel that type of change would be in
violation of church teachings since it preserves the doctrinal view and merely
changes the policy view of additionally trying to stop them even outside the
church.

enfanta non grataTraverse City, MI

June 26, 2014 2:07 p.m.

The behaviour of the LDS church is not surprising, there is no shortage of hate
within the church. Gays are not the only people the LDS look down upon -
adoptees are also viewed as "less than worthy" by the church, which
fights adult adoptees' right to own a copy of their own factual birth
certificate. Persons intimately connected with the LDS have, and continue to
steal children and hide pregnant teens from their families until the infant is
born and sold to an LDS couple. Do your own Google search of this - you will be
horrified.The LDS church is an enemy of adopted persons nationwide, an
enemy of all who posess any empathy at all.

MelannaSalt Lake City, Utah

June 26, 2014 2:02 p.m.

@ RedShirt: It is not against the doctrine of the CoE - as I stated, some CoE
ministers want to perform same-sex marriages and are prohibited by law from
practicing their religion accordingly. This case is similar to the situations
here is the US where some members of a particular sect want same-sex marriage
and others don't. And the members are addressing it according to the rules
of their religion. You may choose to ignore the reality, but this is not the
same as someone suing to have the government force the religion to perform rites
they don't support.

And the NJ case was not about church
doctrine - it was about a special tax exempt status based on public
accommodation. The Methodist church choose to use the tax exempt status but
didn't want to follow the rules associated with having that status. They
were sued to force them to follow the same law everyone else follows. Are you
stating that obeying the law is not a Methodist value? They could very easily
have given up the tax exempt status and not have to worry about letting people
use the gazebo.

Rocket ScienceBrigham City, UT

June 26, 2014 2:00 p.m.

There are indeed many who do argue for traditional marriage that have an
excellent understanding of constitutional principals. Judge Paul J. Kelly in
his discenting argument disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment requires Utah to
extend marriage to same-sex couples or recognize those marriages from other
states. He said "We should resist the temptation to become
philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment"

The "let's
change marriage crowd" wants it imposed that their's is the only way
the constitution can be viewed.

spectorTranquility, UT

June 26, 2014 2:00 p.m.

@Patriot Jim"In a recent e-mail I saw where Denmark was about to tell
the Mormon Church they had to perform gay marriages in the Copenhagen
Temple."

Close. But completely wrong.

Denmark has a
state church, the Danish National Church. And Denmark has passed a law that all
Danish National Churches perform same sex marriages. Individual (Danish
National) priests may opt out of performing the ceremonies. But the the (Danish
National) churches must provide someone to perform the ceremonies upon
request.

This makes sense, since all citizens should be guaranteed
access to a state church.

The law does NOT affect any other
denomination. The Mormon church cannot be made to perform same sex marriages in
their chapels or temples under this law.

@HENELSON"We the people of Utah have the right and responsibility to
choose our laws collectively…"

Very close, but completely
wrong. We can pass laws that are Constitutional. And it is the judicial
branch's responsibility to determine when we've crossed the line. (We
can save a lot of time, money and aggravation if we try to pre-judge
constitutionality before we pass laws, but in the end it is judges who will
decide.)

For example, Utah can't pass a law against being
Baptist. They can't pass a law that says accountants can't have
lawyers at trials. Or that blonds must pay a special tax.

And they
can't pass laws that counter federal laws. Utah can't pass a law
allowing guns past security points at airports because federal law supersedes
local law.

Every case that has been decided since Windsor has found
laws (or state amendments) banning marriage equality are unconstitutional.

You can still make this happen. But it can't be by law or state
amendment. You would have to pass a Constitutional amendment, making it
constitutional.

RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CA

June 26, 2014 1:32 p.m.

To "Maudine" you just asked for a case where a church was sued to do
something against its doctrine. The CoE case is a point where a church was sued
to do something against its doctrine. It doesn't matter that it is the
State church in England. The fact remains that they were sued to do something
they don't believe in.

Even in the Methodist case, they were
being forced to take part in a ceremony that they said was in violation of their
beliefs.

You wanted one instance, I have given you 2. Dismiss them
if you want, but they are history and will set a bad precedent.

Patriot JimWest Valley City, UT

June 26, 2014 1:30 p.m.

In a recent e-mail I saw where Denmark was about to tell the Mormon Church they
had to perform gay marriages in the Copenhagen Temple. I'd bet the Church
closes the Temple before that happens, or may even tear it down so it cannot be
desecrated. Closing the Temple will be a real blow to the Saints in Denmark.

MaudineSLC, UT

June 26, 2014 12:20 p.m.

Actually, GeoMan, the age requirement is based on developmental science and
there is a provable difference between adults and adolescents. There is also a
provable harm to removing the protections placed on children.

This is
something that many opponents of same-sex marriage seem to fail to understand.
The government, local, state, or federal, can limit rights if that limitation
serves a compelling government reason, such as protecting children from harm.
Many states, including Utah, argued that the right of marriage should be limited
to opposite sex couples because allowing same-sex marriage would harm opposite
sex marriages. No state has been able to provide compelling proof of that claim
which is why the same-sex marriage bans keep getting struck down.

It
is very easy to provide compelling proof that children are not developmentally
the equivalent of adults and need to be protected from entering into contracts,
including marriage contracts.

Arguments against same-sex marriage
would be more compelling if those arguing against it seemed to understand basic
Constitutional principles.

MaudineSLC, UT

June 26, 2014 12:08 p.m.

@ Redshirt: The Methodist Church in NJ was not sued to perform a same-sex
marriage - they were sued because they had a Gazebo that they allowed people to
use for events in order to pay a lower property tax on it. NJ, which at the
time did not allow SSM, has a non-discrimination law. Refusing to allow a gay
couple access to the Gazebo violated the non-discrimination clause.

Your points would be more effective if your facts were correct.

As
for the Church of England case - when England legalized SSM, they stated that it
was up to individual churches to decide if they would perform SSM but the Church
of England is prohibited from deciding to have SSM. Now, as you know, the CoE
is run by the English government (part of the reason the Founding Fathers wanted
a separation of Church and State). So, by suing the CoE the couple is actually
suing the British government in an effort to get them to treat all churches
equally and let the churches decide which marriages to perform. Some CoE
ministers want to perform SSM and, according to British law, this is the way to
challenge that restriction.

ExTBirdSpringville, US-UT

June 26, 2014 12:04 p.m.

Redshirt1701--

You continue to prove a point that was mentioned
earlier by Eagle and some others. You make a comment like "If you love God,
why don't you keep his commandments?". Missing the point entirely that
not everyone that believes in God believes in YOUR God. You don't have a
monopoly on spirituality. It has been pointed out many times that the LDS
church is not the morality police. They also don't get to dictate what God
really means, or what his commandments are. You are welcome to believe what you
want, but stop trying to force it on everyone else like it is some undeniable
truth.

I do not believe in your gospel. Like I said earlier your
scriptures may as well be Lord of the Rings as far as I am concerned. I am also
not homosexual in case you were wondering. I believe that people have basic
human rights and that you don't get to step on those rights because you
choose to believe something you read in a book.

GeoManSALEM, OR

June 26, 2014 12:02 p.m.

Early on in this discussion someone posted the caveat "(obviously persons of
consenting age)." What everyone needs to realize is that the basis for that
"obvious" position has no more intrinsic merit that the basis for
arguing against same-sex marriage. It is a social convention that could be
swept aside for exactly the same reasons that are being applied to the same-sex
situation. Just because almost everyone agrees today about the idea of the age
of consent, and that it should be in the late teens, doesn't mean that
12-year-olds couldn't rise up and argue that they have rights. Why should
early teens (or preteens) be subjected to the discrimination and tyranny of a
bunch of old people? Same argument. You can rattle on all you want about the
differences, but you will just be repeating the arguments of the man-woman
marriage side of today's issue. Either there are some things that
have a moral standing independent of public opinion, or everything is a social
convention that is subject for negotiation. Choose wisely.

BYU Track StarLos Angeles, CA

June 26, 2014 11:37 a.m.

@ Sloppyjoe,

A reasonable person would have interepted my hyperbolic
comment as it was "I who coverted,and No, The Presbyterian Elders did not
hold a middle-of-the-night tribunal to decide if it were for me to attone for my
apostasy at the stake via a cleansing fire.

Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut

June 26, 2014 11:31 a.m.

To "Eagle78" that is always a funny thing to say when your ilk says
"God loves the gays". Of course he does. God loves everybody, from
Hitler to Mother Teresa. God loves everybody, and that is never a question.

The questions that your ilk have to think about are tougher. Do you
personally love God? If you love God, why don't you keep his
commandments?

To "Dixie Dan" the LDS church will probably not
allow their Bishops to perform gay wedding ceremonies. You would be asking them
to do something that is in direct opposition to LDS doctrine.

To
"Maudine" in England there was a gay couple that sued the Church of
England to force them to perform a gay marriage despite it being against their
doctrine. This happened to the Methodist Church in New Jersey when a lesbian
couple sued them.

To "SlopJ30" if we make laws to legitimze
gay marriage because of a chemical imbalance in their brains, should we also
make laws to allow bi-polar people to act out violently because they have a
manic urge to punch somebody?

IdahotransplantWest Jordan, UT

June 26, 2014 11:18 a.m.

Whatever religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. you are, unfortunately
we all have been created equal and everyone has the the right to choose how they
want to live as long as they abide by the laws of the land, the laws of men.
There is a higher law and we can disagree but can not be the judge of those who
want to live thier lives the way they want to. Yes, we can express our opinion
and politically try to change things but we have to follow the law. Thier is a
higher court for that at Judgment day. The separation of church and state is
key but so are the rights of a states sovereignty. That separation from state
and federal is getting thinner and thinner because of the ego's in D.C.
Remember people we are not a democracy but a "Republic" of sovereign
states.

AllenSalt Lake valley, UT

June 26, 2014 11:18 a.m.

@spector

I just realized I didn't address your last paragraph.
Sorry for that. Yes, thousands of regulations of marriage do exist, and it would
be a colossal task to remove government from marriage. And, the longer
government regulates marriage, the more difficult it would be to remove
government from marriage. Men, women, and children need protections provided by
government, but those protections should, in my opinion, be provided because
those persons are members of a state/country not because those persons are
members of a marriage. For example, individuals shouldn't be allowed to
abuse others, regardless whether those individuals are members of a marriage,
are neighbors, or whatever.

bbcSLC, UT

June 26, 2014 11:09 a.m.

This ruling DOES NOT Force churches to accept gay-marriage. Read the opinion, p.
60: "We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s
decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214
(“[T]he court notes that its decisiondoes not mandate any change for
religious institutions, which may continue to expresstheir own moral
viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”).
Plaintiffsmust be accorded the same legal status presently granted to
married couples, but religiousinstitutions remain as free as they always
have been to practice their sacraments andtraditions as they see fit. We
respect the views advanced by members of various religiouscommunities and
their discussions of the theological history of marriage. And wecontinue
to recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according
totheir moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not
intrude into thatdomain or the exercise of religious principles in this
arena. The right of an officiant toperform or decline to perform a
religious ceremony is unaffected by today’s ruling."

AllenSalt Lake valley, UT

June 26, 2014 11:08 a.m.

@spector

You've given a good overview of the role of government
in regulating marriage. Thank you for doing that. I'm suggesting that this
regulation of marriage stop and that social groups, such as churches, define
marriage however they wish.

EstoPerpetuaHolden, MA

June 26, 2014 11:02 a.m.

Perhaps those who speculate that -

" the African Americans had to
go through. There is no way that this is similar. Those individuals had to go
through hardships that the LGBT community can not even fathom. "

should research NAZI Germany when LGBTs were not only persecuted like the
Jewish, but were not freed from the NAZI prisons by the USA.

Same
gender marriage is a CIVIL ISSUE, not a religious one, and LGBTs work, pay
taxes, serve their country just like everyone else and should be given equal
marriage rights.

SlopJ30St Louis, MO

June 26, 2014 10:57 a.m.

BYU Track Star says: "Would we be okay with Presbyterians burning former
members at the stake for converting to to Mormonism, like I did some 40 years
ago?"

You burned Protestants-turned-Mormons at the stake back in
the 70's? Is there a statute of limiations on that sort of thing?

HENELSON: I see myself as an American before a native Utahn and current
Missiourian, and I'm guessing you only hide behind the curtain of
states' rights when it suits your personal feelings. If you lived in a more
progressive state (all 49 of them), your tune would be different.

This is a civil rights issue, something the stuck-in-the-1800's
conservative side seems to deny with vehemence. I do not support on any level a
state passing or enforing laws that infringe on any US citizen's rights to
choose whom they marry. The state can't deny basic rights that our nation
allows, and marriage is one of those rights, whether it's literally in the
constitution or not.

Clark DHouston, TX

June 26, 2014 10:46 a.m.

It is inteesting to me that the idea of the terminology, gay, instead of
homosexuals is the way society determined to lighten the identity of this type
of a person. This was first promoted by sex magazines such as penthouse,
hustler, and playboy along with the movie industry. Then the news media
captilized on it because it was controversial. If you view a nude picture of man
and a woman side by side a normal evaluation should apply. To continue to
support the idea of gay is OK is just not realistic. Homosexual activities
may be acceptable to some, but they are and will always be outside of a normal
so called sexual activity. So, how can we support the idea of a marriage of the
same sex? Marriage is a system designed for the joining of a man and woman and
cannot be modified just because some of societies modifications of values.

RanchHere, UT

June 26, 2014 10:45 a.m.

@HENELSON;

Amendment 3 does nothing to "protect traditional
marriage". Nothing at all. The ONLY thing Amendment 3 accomplishes is to
deny marriage to LGBT citizens. That is the ONLY thing it does.

HENELSONlindon, UT

June 26, 2014 10:25 a.m.

I agree with the thinking of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul J. Kelly
Jr who dissented - he stood in defense of state rights. He wrote: "If the
states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize
same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and
representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head,"
he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood
to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the
best way to do this is inevitable."

A judge that understands the
US constitution and the limited roll of the federal government. We the people of
Utah have the right and responsibility to choose our laws collectively and we
chose amendment 3 to protect traditional marriage and morality.

riverofsunSt.George, Utah

June 26, 2014 10:22 a.m.

We are hearing such desperation is the tone of those who are against SSM in
these comments. We also hear anger, fear, and premonitions of doom/the end
of the world, as we know it, from traditional marriage/anti-gay commenters on
these forums.Hoping the LDS Church leaders will be able to put together a
message that will help calm their flock. They must be praying that a message of
Peace and Good Will might be accepted by their LDS membership. Other faiths are
also hurrying to calm their congregations, as well.We know other religions
have already, successfully, shared the word of love and acceptance.. Otherwise, it would appear that all the words of love, kindness, and
acceptance being taught by Mormon missionaries around the globe...... young LDS
missionaries sharing the LDS message.....Well...

SlopJ30St Louis, MO

June 26, 2014 10:17 a.m.

WRK says: "I wish that some would stop equating this with Civil Rights that
the African Americans had to bo through. There is no way that this is
similar."

Missouri loves BYU (who doesn't speak for all BYU
grads in Missouri) also dismisses the racial equality analogy and says:
"Legal and moral are not the same thing and never will be."

Of course they are not exactly the same. Each issue involving what citizens
get what rights comes with its own arguments, nuances and inherent biases.
However, saying there are no similarities between the two is impossible for any
honest, thinking person. "You're different than I am in some way that
makes me uncomfortable, therefore you can't do the same stuff I can" is
never a rational, defensible argument.

And, yes, legal and moral are
not the same thing. One is personal and highly subjective. The other is in black
and white and not only subject to limited interpretation . . by people much more
qualified than you or me. If you want rule based on morality, who gets to be the
morality police? The LDS Church?

spectorTranquility, UT

June 26, 2014 10:17 a.m.

@Allen"It will not happen soon if at all, but get government at all
levels out of marriage. Let governments focus on civil rights via civil unions
or similar things. Let social groups decide what form of marriage (or no
marriage) they will honor."

It amazes me how many people
misunderstand marriage. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults
which brings with it certain rights and responsibilities. Only the government
can issue licenses for marriage. And only the government can grant a divorce,
ending a marriage. It is also the government that extends the right to perform
marriages. Whether it's a priest, pastor, rabbi, bishop, or temple
president -- they all get permission to perform marriages from the state.

As such, the definition of marriage is a matter for the state to decide.
In the U.S. that means that the right to define marriage rests with "We the
People" through our representatives and, yes, as constrained by our
Constitution.

Thousands of laws exist at the state and federal level
pertaining to marriage. To take the government out of marriage would be a
colossal task. Doing so would leave husbands, wives and children without vital
legal protections.

rw123Sandy, UT

June 26, 2014 10:14 a.m.

Some recommend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints should
change its views as a strategic move. Being what it is, the church OF Jesus
Christ, it can do no other thing than what its Lord and Master requires.

BYU Track StarLos Angeles, CA

June 26, 2014 10:11 a.m.

SS Marriage is not a threat to our or My Hetro-Marriage(s). SS Marriage is not
to threat to our Children's socialization and will not spawn a generation
of socio-paths. Other countries haven't collasped into chaos nor will ours.
The biggest threat to Marriage today is D-I-V-O-R-C-E. I read the Church's
brief on why the Status Quo should be maintained regarding SS marriage. I was
not impressed. The findings of California 10th Circuit Court previously found in
so many words that "Religious objections do not trump the rule of law".
I am glad we don't live in a Theocracy where Churchman set the rules of law
for the land. Currently, in the Sudan, a marriaed Christian woman was sentenced
to death for being an Apostate Muslim. Would we be okay with Presbyterians
burning former members at the stake for converting to to Mormonism, like I did
some 40 years ago? I think not...

rw123Sandy, UT

June 26, 2014 10:11 a.m.

@RFLASH

My opinion (not church doctrine) is that yes, some may have
the propensity to be gay. That there may even be a set percentage who do.
There may be a set percentage who are prone to all sorts of various and sundry
sins. We ALL have weaknesses. We all sin in different ways. One could name
many sins that different people may be prone to. I certainly sin. I don't
know if GOD made us that way or not. I really don't. But I do know he
wants us to overcome those weaknesses and has prepared a way to do so.

So, even though you may have come to earth with some propensities, I
don't agree that they are uncontrollable or healthy for society or the
individual. Homosexuality is a serious transgression or sin, like any other.
God loves His children indeed, all of them, but he does not like all that they
do. Just my opinion.

koseightyThe Shire, UT

June 26, 2014 9:59 a.m.

Just this year, a church in the south refused to marry an interracial couple.
Both had been members of the church for some time and had dated and been engaged
while attending that church. The church refused, not because they didn't
like the couple or that they wouldn't continue to welcome them to attend
their church. It was tradition. They have never allowed interracial marriages
at their church and they didn't want to start making exceptions.

This 47 years after Loving v. Virginia.

While anti-discrimination
laws will apply to florists, they do not and cannot be applied to churches.
Churches are protected by the 1st amendment to be as racist, misogynistic or
homophobic as they wish. No same sex marriages will be forced on the Mormon
church. The scare tactics are ridiculous.

AllenSalt Lake valley, UT

June 26, 2014 9:59 a.m.

It will not happen soon if at all, but get government at all levels out of
marriage. Let governments focus on civil rights via civil unions or similar
things. Let social groups decide what form of marriage (or no marriage) they
will honor.

Goddess DivineOrem, UT

June 26, 2014 9:56 a.m.

I agree with Deseretina, continuing the fight doesnt make any sense. I think is
a waste of time, money and resources. I wish the church would ask their members
if they agree on continuing using the church money and resources for this. If
they asked me, I would say NO. Invest that money in the poor, temples, etc.

I also agree with Kindred, whatever the position of the federal
government, the meaning of marriage cannot be changed. At the same time, I
don't like to impose on others my beliefs. Everyone should,use their free
agency to make their own decisions. I was told by someone that the consequences
of allowing gay marriage could affect our society and we don't know what
those are yet. I don't know where she got that idea from. Gays and lesbians
have lived among us since biblical times and to this day, the word hasn't
changed much because of them. Heterosexuals continue being heterosexuals and
gays continue being gays. The bad effects on society are brought upon us mainly
by those politians that get everyone into wars.

Abinadis friendBoise, Idaho

June 26, 2014 9:55 a.m.

Lucifer is really working hard at this point in our Second Estate. We need to
stand strong against him forcing his agenda. To those of us that have a
testimony of the Lords plan, it is unbelievable what is transpiring. Just
remember that the lords plan will win out in the end. Have faith and keep the
commandments.

SlopJ30St Louis, MO

June 26, 2014 9:48 a.m.

@Redshirt1701 (from another thread where I'm capped out):

"So, do we make laws to permit people to act out on their urges caused by
an altered brain chemistry or do we look for ways to fix the altered brain
chemistry?"

Lots of things can be considered "abnormal"
depending on who's evaluating matters. To answer your question directly . .
well, I can't, because people are ALREADY acting on their urges. This legal
matter isn't allowing anyone to have sex that wasn't having it before.
That's one of the primary problems with your side of this debate . .
you've got sex, sex, sex on the brain. That part of the relationship is
already happening, regardless of the SSM debate.

But still, I'll
give it a go . . a free society can't specifically prohibit people from
acting on their nature, or urges, their desires, or whatever you want to call
it, unless it demonstrably harms others. Whether you think it's
"unnatural" is irrelevant. Whether you think it's gross is
irrelevant. Whether you believe God doesn't like it is irrelevant. Whatever
you think the Founding Fathers would think is irrelevant.

Tyler DMeridian, ID

June 26, 2014 9:43 a.m.

@RedwingsAppreciate the kind words…

@samhill –
“The only reason the notion of homosexual "marriage" has gained
any traction…is because of the reciprocal diminished and devaluation of
marriage in general.”

This statement appears to violate the
logical law of non-contradiction.

@Ranch

I can’t
imagine growing up and constantly being told my left-handedness is a mistake and
a sin in the eyes of God. Probably would have spent years trying to do
everything with my right hand all the while knowing deep down I was not living
my best and most authentic self.

Guessing once I realized that I was
simply living in a family/culture of conformists to a particular set of beliefs
I would be tempted towards great anger, but would hope that later maturity would
turn that anger to pity (“forgive them, they know not what they do”)
as I came to understand that these right-hander conformists are living a
collective delusion, at least from everyone else’s perspective.

Remember - all religions viewed from the inside are true, and all religions
viewed from the outside are false.

koseightyThe Shire, UT

June 26, 2014 9:42 a.m.

@Ranch"Apparently we're also the cause of global warming."

You're Hot, Hot, Hot! :o)

RanchHere, UT

June 26, 2014 9:37 a.m.

ulvegaard says:"I shall continue to advocate traditional marriage, to
resist same sex marriage - but through peaceful means and with mutual respect
and common courtesy for all involved."

I ask you this in all
honesty, is it "mutual respect and courtesy" to deny others the legal
benefits you enjoy?

Free AgencySalt Lake City, UT

June 26, 2014 9:35 a.m.

It amazes me how people will still quote the Bible in their argument against gay
marriage and gay sexual activity. Don't they know that everyone's
already heard all those biblical quotes, again and again and again? And that if
they were going to accept them as "God's Word," they would have
done so by now? Do these posters really think that someone who's for gay
marriage and gay sexual activity will read *their* posting and suddenly cry,
"Oh, I've been wrong! I repent! Please forgive me, God!"

As to those people who are annoyed-to-outraged at the comparison of gay civil
rights with African-American civil rights, the comparison is valid as to
*principle*, not as to "degree of suffering." (Though God knows, gays
have suffered deeply too.)

Anyone who believes in Mormon doctrine is
free to join the Mormon Church. Anyone who believes in the validity of
same-gender loving relationships is free to support gay marriage. It's a
free country. End of story.

ExTBirdSpringville, US-UT

June 26, 2014 9:32 a.m.

Redwings--

You don't have to agree with same-sex marriage. You
don't have to like it. That is completely your right. What isn't
your right is to try and wield the law as a weapon to help you discriminate
against others. Gay people isn't something you want to see on tv/movie?
Change the channel.

Telling someone that they are a lesser human
compared to you because you disagree with their lifestyle is wrong.

Also, please don't quote scripture like it some how bolsters your point.
Not everyone believes what you do, and for many people those words are
meaningless. You could quote Lord of the Rings and it would have the same
impact in our eyes.

ulvegaardMedical Lake, Washington

June 26, 2014 9:23 a.m.

@RFLASH, I very much appreciate your view point and your apparent determination
to treat everyone with civility and tolerance.

With that, I remind us
all that the LDS church, along with it ongoing stance against gay marriage
continues to encourage this same type of civility towards everyone; even those
who do not share our view points.

It is interesting how those
advocating same sex marriage are often insistent that anyone who disagrees with
them are hate filled, homophobic bigots. By my own personal view point which I
share completely with the LDS church leadership, I shall continue to advocate
traditional marriage, to resist same sex marriage - but through peaceful means
and with mutual respect and common courtesy for all involved.

Miss PiggiePhoenix, AZ

June 26, 2014 9:21 a.m.

@koseighty:"One step closer to marriage equality for all citizens of
every state. A happy day."

Agreed. And the next steps will be to
legalize polygamy, siblings marriages, close relative (such as first cousins or
aunt/niece). Cant wait to marry my grandfather (who is still married to my
grandmother). There's now no reason to block these types of marriages.
The 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses dictate such.
Finally, the courts have seen the light and have moved the country away from
discrimination in marriage. Happy day!

The next step? Eliminate
marriage altogether.

dmcveyLos Angeles, CA

June 26, 2014 9:21 a.m.

Tyler D, there is a difference. The majority of Americans now support gay
marriage, this was never the case with abortion. Even most young religious
people support gay marriage or don't care about it.

dmcveyLos Angeles, CA

June 26, 2014 9:19 a.m.

Redwings--nondiscrimination policies don't and have never pertained to
Churches. This is simply a scare tactic.

wrzPhoenix, AZ

June 26, 2014 9:13 a.m.

"The judge did his job, as he is supposed to do."

The judge
erred. Even the Supreme Court has been known to err from time to time. They are,
after all, human.

If homosexuals can marry, others who love each
other, such as father/daughter should also be allowed to marry. Same with
siblings. Same with polygamists. Apparently, other types of marriage
combinations that can be conjured are disgusting to the judge. There is no
logical excuse for others who love each other to not be able to enjoy married
life just like homosexuals.

"Unlike with same-sex marriage, there
are legally valid reasons to limit marriage involving close relatives,
etc."

'Legally valid' is no excuse to prohibit marriage
for those who love each other. At least that's what homosexuals are telling
us.

dmcveyLos Angeles, CA

June 26, 2014 9:12 a.m.

We're dealing with Civil Marriage here. What any religion believes is the
will of God has nothing to do with this. These laws affect people who
don't belong to the same church you do. No religion will be forced to
marry any couple they don't want to, but there are religions who do want to
sanction gay marriages--what about their religious freedoms.

Sneaky JimmyBay Area, CA

June 26, 2014 9:03 a.m.

@RedWings When your belief teaches you to segregate people that don't meet
your ideal or to remove compassion and inclusion from school curriculum then a
sane person would start to question those beliefs. I'm not sure what your
point is with Math 10:34 but if you think Jesus was advocating killing people
that didn't believe in him I think you have it wrong.

Dan TaylorKeyser, WV

June 26, 2014 9:01 a.m.

So i guess if a bunch of people want to start a movement where they can go
anywhere naked that should be allowed to. I mean isn't it against their
rights to make them put clothes on their bodies. What it they feel freer and
epecially in hot and humid areas where it adds even more temperature to their
bodies. The gay agenda is no different than the one I just discribed. It is
about peoples rights is it not? Someone going to the mall naked doesn't
effect anyone else and their families. Or does it? What if they say not
letting them do that is infringing on their civil rights. I know you can say
there are places where they can go that allow that, but what if they just want
to have the same privaleges as everyone else and go to the local Mall or grocery
store? Bottom line is: You can't justify wrong behavior by playing the
"rights" card.

RanchHere, UT

June 26, 2014 8:56 a.m.

RedWings says:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

You can
think of us as the sword perhaps.

Has it occurred to you that we
can't watch tv without every show being about heterosexuals? I consider it
a blessing when I get to see a show that has even one gay character. The
problem is that they're still portrayed in the usual stereotypes. I
consider it a real blessing when that gay character is portrayed as a regular
person.

Why do your beliefs matter more than mine (such that you get
to enact them into law as to deny me the benefits you enjoy)?

@gharmons;

Did it ever occur to you that you're religious
beliefs to "get what I want, etc."?

Blue Collar Huntington, UT

June 26, 2014 8:51 a.m.

Marriage is a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. Nothing can ever change
that. You can have sex with who ever and what ever you want in today's
world, but true marriage is a man and a woman, a Mom and a Dad. And nothing will
ever compare to what a Man and a Woman bring to the table, Never!

Brian UtleyFreedom, IN

June 26, 2014 8:49 a.m.

What is this "traditional" stuff? Traditions change. It happens all
the time. Mormons should know this as well as anybody; because with them it
happens almost every general conference (as far as I can tell). Now folks are
in the embrace of creating some new "traditions." What's wrong
with that? To me, playing the "tradition" card in this marriage
argument is like trying to play with a deck with five aces...or, if you're
somebody that only uses Rook cards, a deck with chartreuse as the fifth or wild
suit.

gharmonsHelendale, CA

June 26, 2014 8:38 a.m.

"Man's law cannot make moral that which God has declared to be
immoral." Of course, for those who choose not to believe in God or who put
their own personal desires above God's law, they couldn't care less
what God says. It's, "I want the right to do what I want to do when I
want to do it, where I want to, and with whom I want to." That is the
secularism sweeping our nation.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

June 26, 2014 8:32 a.m.

Eagle 78 -

The "normalization" of the gay lifestyle through
the media and entertainment does affect my life. Being unable to watch a tv
show or movie without at least one character being gay, or school cirriculum
which teaches that this lifestyle is not only normal and acceptable, but
something to be celebrated are all just as much an attack on my beliefs as you
claim the LDS Church has made on yours.

Why do your beliefs matter
more than mine?

Christ said:

"Think not that I am
come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
(Matthew 10:34)

"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth
after me, is not worthy of me."(Matthew 10:38)

Doesn't
sound to me like the "love and accept everyone" Jesus that so many think
exists...

mightyhunterhahaKaysville, UT

June 26, 2014 8:30 a.m.

@RFLASHThere is no demeaning or degrading in the belief that marriage is
only between a man and a woman. That is a belief much like your belief as you
stated. If the belief of marriage is only between a man and a woman then your
tirade is also demeaning and degrading to my personal and religious belief. You
stated you are exactly how God intended you to be. I disagree. God placed you
here to become more than what you are. Your statement basically says you have
zero choice in who you are. That would be contrary not only to God but to Maslow
and Jung.

GoldminerSalem, ut

June 26, 2014 8:21 a.m.

Will homosexuals sue the local Bishop and the Church when he will not marry
them? I suspect so. What is going to happen when the Church changes policy and
only seals couples in the Temple? Are there going to be law suits of
discrimination for that, too? I would not be surprised.

This is a
real mess for sure but, when we go against the eternal morality of God, it is
what we get.

So sad for all sides.

MoreManSan Diego, CA

June 26, 2014 8:18 a.m.

Once again the rich white male leaders have spoken... however this time we
won't just shut up and blindly obey. This is going to become a trend as
the church lurches forward into the new millenium.

JonathanPDXPortland, Oregon

June 26, 2014 8:15 a.m.

The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings,
presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the
law."

Let the courts rule as they will; a civil marriage is not a
Temple Marriage and never will be. It is nothing more than a contract between
two persons and is binding only in this lifetime.

The laws of man,
however, cannot command the Elders of the Church to seal that which cannot be
sealed. While men and their capricious laws might make a mockery of sacred
institutions and ordinances, only those who obey the Lord will receive his
blessings.

SpasIvins, UT

June 26, 2014 8:03 a.m.

I think the LDS Church has every right to make rules for its members, and its
members should obey the rules or leave the Church. However, the Church has no
right to make rules for people who do not believe in the LDS faith. What a huge
violation of separation of Church and State for the LDS Church to try to
interfere with secular law.

RanchHere, UT

June 26, 2014 8:01 a.m.

@Michigander;

You can stand next to me when God starts throwing
around his meteorites and brimstone bolts. They'll all hit me and you will
be safe. I'll protect you; you don't have to be afraid.

@Missouri loves BYU;

We haven't been placed in bondage, but
we've been persecuted, murdered, hounded and hated. You can look up the
origin of the word 'F...' commonly used to reference LGBT people. How
would you like to have treated accordingly? It certainly has parallels to the
travails of people of color.

@Kaladin;

You would do better
to "protect the sanctity of marriage" from those who abuse it rather
than deny it to those who cherish it.

@RedWings;

"It
is really disturbing to me that you would advocate discrimination based on
religion."

Right back atcha.

@Eagle78;

Thank you. Your comments help obviate the pain caused by so many other
comments.

@Dad;

Being gay is not "misbehaving" nor
is it "mentally ill" nor "temptation".

@ExTBird;

Apparently we're also the cause of global warming.

Visitor from CaliforniaBerkeley, CA

June 26, 2014 7:49 a.m.

Please bear in mind that many religious denominations already sanction and bless
same-sex unions. This country was founded on the basis of religious freedom. One
religion (LDS) doesn't get to dictate to those with different beliefs what
rights they are entitled to by the government. No religion will be forced by
this ruling to go against its teachings. Beware of trying to impose your own
views through the force of government! Remember the sad history of persecution
because of your beliefs, and keep in mind that the Church of LDS is still a
minority religion and does well to defend the principle of religious freedom and
keeping church and state separate. Whatever your views, we are better served by
keeping religious doctrine out of government.

MaudineSLC, UT

June 26, 2014 7:47 a.m.

@ DaveChu: Please provide the details of one church anywhere being forced to
perform a same-sex wedding ceremony against their religious teachings.

As for the baker and the photographer, those weren't about same-sex
marriage, they were about anti-discrimination laws. As a matter of fact,
Colorado, where the baker case was, does not currently allow same-sex marriage.

I find it very interesting that in a discussion where so many accuse
same-sex couples of wanting special rights, so many (sometimes even the same
people) think Christians should be given the special right of ignoring laws they
find inconvenient. While making the claim that same-sex couples should not have
access to the right and privileges of marriage they are also claiming that
Christians should have a right to refuse to follow business laws requiring equal
treatment of all customers.

kolob1sandy, UT

June 26, 2014 7:37 a.m.

" Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we
conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State
of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the
fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy
the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny
the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their
marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm. " Take heed
and read " the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry,
establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a
state’s marital laws." Establish a family, raise children and enjoy
the Full protection (ADOPTION) of a state's marital laws" Right on!

one voteSalt Lake City, UT

June 26, 2014 7:10 a.m.

The constitution of the United States prevails over attempt to put religion into
Utah constitution.

bobdc6park city, UT

June 26, 2014 6:55 a.m.

Marriage is a contract between two people as defined by state law, and as such,
subject to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This law is a
creature of the state, not of any church or anyone else. Proof of this fact is
that only the state can break the marriage contract, a dissolution of marriage,
or the granting of a divorce. That the state grants some individuals the
authority to preform marriages within the confines of state law, it doesn't
give them the authority to rewrite that law, and doesn't require them to
marry anyone at all if they don't want to. Any appeal of established law
concerning marriage is a waste of taxpayer money.

Aggie5Kuna, ID

June 26, 2014 6:35 a.m.

And the grey lines continue to flow. But my church stands strong. Love the
sinner, not the sin.

GeckojudoBillings, MT

June 26, 2014 6:26 a.m.

We are in the world, but not of the world. There will be consequences for all
actions. Just because "everybody's doing it" does not make it
right. Stick to your standards. The Final Judgement by Christ the Lord will be
your reward for doing so.

Dixie DanSaint George, UT

June 26, 2014 6:25 a.m.

If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriages, will a local Bishop be allowed to
perform the marriage in Utah? Can a legally gay couple hold their wedding
reception in a local Cultural Hall of the chapel they attend regularly? Can
they be sealed in the temple sometime in the future?

TimBehrendAuckland NZ, 00

June 26, 2014 5:56 a.m.

zmillion2: "Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always
will be."

Marriage is, in fact, a social institution that is
governed by civil law. Religions receive the authority to marry their members
from the state, as long as state regulations are followed and a state licence
has been issued. Your understanding is opposite to the plain facts.

Surfs UpHuntington Beach, CA

June 26, 2014 5:12 a.m.

I know that people don't like to talk about the children. But it really is
children who ultimately suffer because of this ruling. They deserve the ying and
the yang that nature offers. The mom and the dad. I know that death happens,
divorce happens but then at least a child has a thought of a mom or a dad. With
same sex marriage a child could be trapped with two moms or two dads... So sad!!

DaveChiuProvo, UT

June 26, 2014 1:39 a.m.

It is clear that this bad decision will be leveraged into demands for
non-traditional marriages to be granted wherever they are demanded (especially
in LDS temples), just as has been seen in other countries and w/ the wedding
cake baker and photographer cases here in America.

Those who claim
redefining marriage will not trample on others' beliefs have a little
problem:

the actions of their side, and obvious intentions to abuse
the special privilege they are gaining, shout far more loudly than their
insincere reassurances.

Those who claim things will be just as
hunky-dory as they say fail to establish that once such a monumental
redefinition is imposed, what is to stop all kinds of other redefinition?

DaveChiuProvo, UT

June 26, 2014 1:28 a.m.

FatherofFour was inaccurate to claim that the Church forbade inter-racial
marriage even after 1964... I was born in '64, and my parents were married
2+ years earlier in the LA temple -- it was OK w/ the Church for them to be
married despite being against the law in Utah where they met.

I love
my friends who feel otherwise... this is where I stand --

all
people have an equal opportunity to marryif the following verifiable
conditions (among others) are met:

if Love is now presumed as the over-riding factor,then
how will society rationally decline to acceptpre-teen, sibling,
polygamous, stalker, etc unions?

I know and deeply feel what actual
discrimination regarding marriage looks like (Utah etc's formerlyracial marriage laws), and the cause celebre aint it

Two For FlinchingSalt Lake City, UT

June 26, 2014 12:58 a.m.

@ RedWings

The church will not forced to change anything. The First
Amendment isn't going anywhere. Same-sex couples will be allowed to get
married, but that does not mean they will be able to do so in the temple.

21MOMKeaau, HI

June 26, 2014 12:52 a.m.

"But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest
of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or
restraint." ~Edmund Burke

21MOMKeaau, HI

June 26, 2014 12:48 a.m.

"All who have ever written on government are unanimous, that among a people
generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist." ~Edmund Burke

Josh McCraySalk Lake City, UT

June 26, 2014 12:10 a.m.

I agree Pastors should not be forced to perform ceremonies they do not wish to
perform and they already have the right to decline performing any ceremony they
don't wish to perform.

It is however the responsibility of our
judicial system to protect the rights of ALL American citizens under the
constitution EVEN IF state legislation would limit those rights. This is a
lesson learned from our past.

ExTBirdSpringville, US-UT

June 25, 2014 11:21 p.m.

It makes sense why God seems to always share his followers prejudices and
concerns. They invented him. I really just can't see a being so all
powerful that he created quite literally everything having a panic attack
because some people of the same gender want to have a ceremony in front of their
friends and families.

Depending on who you ask though this is
apparently the beginning of the end for mankind. Didn't really take much
did it? :(

Eagle78Salt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 10:57 p.m.

@zmillion2

Are homosexual people not allowed to believe in God? Are
they not allowed to have faith? This is where religion as a whole has caused
such a global mess. There really isn't any respect for anyone else's
beliefs. If someone doesn't believe exactly what you do then their beliefs
are just misguided mumbo jumbo.

Believe it or not a person can be
gay, and also believe that God doesn't hate them for that. In fact that he
loves them just the same and wants them to be happy. Someone can believe in a
greater power and believe that that greater power doesn't concern himself
with the petty bigotries of man. Someone being different isn't scary, or
gross to the creator of the universe. People should stop projecting their own
insecurities onto God.

zmillion2West Jordan, UT

June 25, 2014 10:10 p.m.

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always will be.
I'm surprised that atheist's and same sex couples would even want to
take part in a ceremony that is so religious. When religion as a whole is
against everything they stand for. I guess people will do whatever it takes to
make something religious into something worldly.

Eagle78Salt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 8:14 p.m.

Maudine hit the nail right on the head. There is no logical, legal reason to
oppose same-sex marriage. "Because our church says it's bad" just
isn't good enough. You can not deny a substantial group of people the same
rights you give yourselves simply because you think they're "icky".
Comparing same-sex marriage to something like beastiality is as ignorant as it
is offensive.

It does my heart good though to see that progress gets
made even when hateful people try to stop it. The "White Only" signs
got torn down eventually, and someday this mess will be behind us as well.

DadSan Antonio, TX

June 25, 2014 8:05 p.m.

RFLASH: "If God's intention was to make us all the same, then He would
have done it! I have lived with myself for fifty years and I think I have a
right to say that God made me just the way He wanted me to be! "

With this logic, you're essentially saying that God made us the way we
behave. So is a person misbehaves and decides to kill another person, God made
them that way? (I get there are those who are mentally ill - I'm not
talking about the exception) You do not understand this fundamental truth; just
because you are a creation of God, does not mean He condones everything you or I
choose to do. Justify all you want but one, on God's side, is the majority.

I feel for those that have homosexual tendencies. I don't know
how hard that would be to overcome, but any temptation can be overcome. The Lord
will always live the sinner and hate the sin and that is how people who proclaim
follow Jesus should be.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

June 25, 2014 7:29 p.m.

Entitled not stilted. Sorry

MaudineSLC, UT

June 25, 2014 7:25 p.m.

@ samhill: The reason same-sex marriage has gained so much traction so fast is
because people have come to realize it is not the end of the world that so many
opponents like to claim it is.

As the Prop 8 case made its way
through the courts, the truth of the opposition came out - namely, that the
reasons given to oppose same-sex marriage have no foundation in fact.

Since there is no logical, legal reason to oppose same-sex marriage, people
have stopped opposing it.

Duke of Earl GreySalt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 7:21 p.m.

The question of whether a family with opposite-sex parents is a better setting
for children than a family with same-sex parents seems irrelevant to the legal
issue at hand, because same-sex couples already do raise children, and will
continue to raise children even if their unions are not recognized as marriage.
So the question should be, which is better for their children, that their
parents are recognized as married or unmarried? Because either way those
children won't be raised by a man and a woman, sorry.

samhillSalt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 6:56 p.m.

The only reason the notion of homosexual "marriage" has gained any
traction at all in the last 10-15 years is because of the reciprocal diminished
and devaluation of marriage in general.

The commitments fundamental
to marriage have been the foundation of family life for millennia. The reasons
were once obvious to almost all people. But, with the erosion of many other
critically important societal values, so has recognition and understanding of
the vital role of marriage to family and of family to society.

It's a societal degenerative process that's been predicted for ages,
but the speed and breadth of the deterioration during just the last decade has
been astonishing to me and has me dreading the coming years.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

June 25, 2014 6:52 p.m.

@redwings Please do site your sources for your claims about MA. You are
stilted to your opinions but not your own made up "facts"

DanOMission Viejo, CA

June 25, 2014 5:25 p.m.

Red Wings, nothing in your 1:33pm post is factual. The adoption case in MA was
the Catholic Charities who did take tax money for their adoption service. There
was nothing about LDS Social Services. Also, religions will not be forced by
states to change their policies. There is plenty of precedent upholding the
First Amendment rights of religions to be as exclusionary as they like.

PaganSalt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 5:22 p.m.

It's very simple.

Cost. Vs. Gain. Cost: To continue to
work to deny LGBT Americans marriage.

'SALT LAKE CITY — The price
tag for hiring outside counsel to defend Utah's voter-approved
constitutional amendment on marriage is expected to be close to $2 million,
money that key GOP lawmakers are willing to spend.'

Unless you count children put
up for adoption that would have a better chance to live in a two-parent house
hold.

Eagle78Salt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 4:57 p.m.

@Redwings

The difference here is that by making gay marriage legal
they are not forcing anything on you. You are not suddenly obligated to be gay
because it's now legal. You are not suddenly obligated to agree with that
life style. It ultimately has little, to no impact on your life. On the other
side of that coin if the LDS church has its way it DOES impact the lives of many
people. There is no "leftist agenda" here. Discrimination is
discrimination and it isn't any less vile just because you try to hide it
behind "Freedom of Religion". It doesn't matter what party you
support either. Wrong is wrong.

The tragic thing here is that the
LDS church actively campaigns in a field that hurts people. There is absolutely
nothing Christ like about denying your fellow man something as beautiful as
marriage simply because you disagree with who is getting married. The Church
talks about respect and love, but at the same time ignores how many
people's lives they negatively impact because they feel that there is
something wrong with them. Of which they have absolutely no proof other then
"because God said so."

Tex-UteDallas, TX

June 25, 2014 4:51 p.m.

@SqueezySprings

A dog or any other animal can't consent nor can
they enter into a binding contract. So their rights are already protected. As
far as plural marriage goes this can set a precedent for those who want to
practice it. In all fairness as long as its not abused as it was with Warren
Jeffs and other like him. Example of that is how Utah did not file charges
against Kody Brown and his four wives. Shurtleff had assured the Browns they
wouldn't be prosecuted under his policy that consenting adult polygamists
won't be charged as long as they're not committing other crimes.

happy2bhereclearfield, UT

June 25, 2014 4:17 p.m.

As far as the LDS Church is concerned, secular marriage laws are amendable
according to particular jurisdictions or countries requirements. For instance,
in England, it is a law that all marriages have to be open to the public.
Therefore, no one can be married in an LDS Temple only. So the Church allows
the marriage to first take place in a chapel, open to the public, and then after
the secular marriage, the couple goes to the Temple a day or so later for the
sealing. I don't think any change in secular marriage law will have any
real effect on the Church. What will be interesting to see is if some
advocates of same sex partners, much like that woman recently excommunicated for
advocating women getting the priesthood, start a campaign that same sex couples
should be allowed to be sealed in a Temple. Some might say, never happen, but
then look how fast SSM has come in only a few years. I'm sure the Church
will stay strong and hold to the true principles of marriage, but it is a fight
I see on the horizon.

rogerdpackOrem, UT

June 25, 2014 3:54 p.m.

The supreme court taking this up has some relevance, since I thought in their
ruling against Prop. 8 at least one justice said that the federal courts had no
business deciding these things, so...here's hoping, it's basically the
last hope...

SqueezySpringsProvo, UT

June 25, 2014 3:54 p.m.

I hope all the lgbt activists show the same support when the polygamy, polyandry
and beastiality communities start actively pursuing their rights. I mean who
cares if a person has more than one spouse, right? They're not hurting
anyone and it's their choice. So what if the guy down the road would rather
have sex with his dog instead of a human. Give him the right to marry Princess
the dog. Why not let everybody have their freedom to do as they feel.

Tex-UteDallas, TX

June 25, 2014 3:49 p.m.

I think everyone needs to take the emotion out of the debate and focus on the
law. This would not impact the church stance, doctrine, acknowledgement or
ability to excommunciate those that do not adhere to its policies. It does
affirm the principals that this country was founded on of freedom and liberty
will be upheld for all. History shows progress and equality always wins in this
great country. Lets not forget its the same principals and protections the
Mormons benefited from in the late 19th century. Ironically they were
persecuted for their view on marriage at the time (Plural Marriage). If anything
if they wanted this lays the groundwork for repealing the 1890 Manifesto and
reverting back to their original doctrine.

Either way we all
benefit when minority rights are protected. You never know when you might be on
the other side looking for the same.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

June 25, 2014 3:47 p.m.

Eagle78 -

My political opinions are informed by my religious
beliefs. My religion is a part of who I am - I can't separate the two. It
is really disturbing to me that you would advocate discrimination based on
religion. Freedom of Religion is the first of the rights listed in the
Constitution.

How is it less wrong to make beliefs about
homosexuality and immorality part of the law, and make those who disagree
follow? This is the core hypocrisy that the Left advocates.

It would
be great to know that the state will never force the Church to allow gays to
marry in the Temple. I see that as a real threat with the forced acceptance of
the gay lifestle. We have hit the slippery slope and have started downward....

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 3:35 p.m.

It gets brought before the judges twice and they're told no both times. Are
they just going to keep asking again and again until they get the answer they
want?

DutchmanMurray, UT

June 25, 2014 3:19 p.m.

Even if SCOTUS eventually rules in favor of the states allowing each to define
marriage as they see fit those states that continue to ban same sex marriage
will cave in and lift the bans on same sex marriage because of threats and
boycotts. Even Utah would capitulate for reasons of maintaining economic
development.

Eagle78Salt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 2:51 p.m.

Politics should NOT be influenced by religious beliefs. It is ridiculous that
this continues to be a "problem" for people. If the LDS church firmly
believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman then fine. They are
allowed to believe what they want, and practice that belief. What is just flat
out wrong though is trying to make those beliefs a law that everyone else must
follow. Don't allow gay couples to get married in the temple if you
don't like it. That is your right. Stop trying to stand in the way of the
rights of others thought just because they don't fit with your religions
world view.

Gay marriage is going to happen. Sooner or later what is
right, fair, and just IS going to win out from coast to coast. Be on the right
side of history (for once), and just leave people alone. Keep your practices,
and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

June 25, 2014 2:48 p.m.

Tyler D -

Thank you for your post.

While we may disagree
on the SSM issue, the reasons for the rapid change in public opinion, and other
issues, I appreciate you assessment of a possisle SCOTUS 5-4 ruling and its
implications for the future. And I appreciate the reasoning behind your
comment.

It is possible to those who disagree to find understanding
and have concern for each other's opinion and rights. Hopefully this will
be the path moving forward....

RFLASHSalt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Look around our World and see how God created His children! Are they all white?
Do they they all have blue eyes? Are we all the same height? No, There are huge
differences and we were all created by God! If God's intention was to make
us all the same, then He would have done it! I have lived with myself for fifty
years and I think I have a right to say that God made me just the way He wanted
me to be! Being gay was no accident and it does have a purpose! I believe that
one of the reasons God created so much diversity was to help learn what it is to
truly love others. Come on, we are not children! There is something wrong when
people have such a need to demean and degrade others and to simply use God as an
excuse is pretty lame! Being gay has taught me something important. I don't
have to judge someone like some judge us! I don't need to tell them what
God intended for them in life! He will tell them and He will help them know!

KaladinNorthern, CO

June 25, 2014 2:16 p.m.

Same sex marriage will be allowed in all states before long. That being said,
the Church can do nothing but stand against it, as it is our firmly held
doctrinal and scriptural belief that marriage should be between a man and a
woman. I understand why many don't like this view as it is, for the most
part, a religious conviction. So while we feel that homosexuality is a sin and
we fight to protect the sanctity of marriage against it, knowing that the world
does not agree with us and eventually will allow it, we do not condone any kind
of violence, hatred, or mistreatment of anyone with an opposite view. I know
this will be incredible in the minds of some, but it is true. I abhor the sin,
but love the sinner, and I would ask the same of others towards me and my
imperfections.

Missouri loves BYULebanon, MO

June 25, 2014 2:15 p.m.

Trying to equate slavery and african american descrimimination with Gay and
lesbian challenges is the same as trying to equate challenges of the pioneers
crossing the plains with handcarts and someone driving cross country on I-70
with a broken air conditioner. Legal and moral are not the same thing and never
will be. If I am going to make a mistake I am going to err on the side for
moral.

MichiganderWestland, MI

June 25, 2014 2:13 p.m.

3 Nephi 9:

[10] And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh,
and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with
fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out
the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning
their wickedness and their abominations.

[11] And because they did
cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down
fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from
before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among
them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.

If they do it will be 5-4 with Kennedy voting with the liberals, and gay
marriage will instantly become the Roe v Wade of our generation (a politically
divisive issue causing acrimony and rallying the base for decades to come).

Better to let this issue continue to change hearts and minds (as it has
done at an incredibly fast rate over the past decade) and change the laws at a
grassroots (i.e., democratic) level.

I know this won’t satisfy
gay rights advocates but I believe gays will be far better off taking this long
view approach.

Do you really think it will be good for society to
give the religious right one more issue for them to rant about how they’re
being oppressed and living under Federal tyranny? I know it’s silly but
there are millions who think this way and like it or not their thoughts have
consequences.

ManzanitaLas Vegas, NV

June 25, 2014 2:09 p.m.

And in order to illustrate for the Supreme Court what it means by
"traditional" marriage, will the LDS Church be attaching as exhibits to
its amicus brief the same affidavits that were submitted by the Church in the
Temple Lot Case? (i.e., the affidavits from several women attesting to the fact
that they were married to Joseph Smith)?

koseightyThe Shire, UT

June 25, 2014 2:06 p.m.

Love how the Deseret News continues to use stock photos of hands in an effort to
dehumanize this issue. Every other news outlet is using real photos of real
couples in their coverage.

Shame on you Deseret News.

YoungPuppywest Jordan, UT

June 25, 2014 2:04 p.m.

Unfortunately for the LDS church the US constitution and the 14th amendment was
not written with their specific religious views in mind. Also "the will of
the people" does not count if they wish something that is unconstitutional.
That is the whole purpose for the judicial system, to find where people are
harmed and rule based on the constitution and laws.

A church or
even every church together can not and should not be able to influence the laws.
Would these same people be in favor for a majority Islamic city or state
implementing Sharia laws because that is what the majority of the people voted
for? I am pretty sure that the LDS church would be against such laws that
favored religious views that they differed from.

It is a great day
for Utah and the nation and the march for equality.

ibnwebDallas, TX

June 25, 2014 2:05 p.m.

if the voters of Utah had followed the leaders of their major church, they would
not have banned gay civil unions along with gay marriage. Had they done this,
the issue of gay marriage might never have become a major fight. Why do you
think the Church leadership was not against gay civil unions? It's because
they knew it would take the wind out of gay marriage, but the
ultra-conservatives behind the amendment thought they knew better.

CylonesRussunamn, IN

June 25, 2014 2:04 p.m.

Jesus our creator has the authority to determine right and wrong, did address
the gay marriage issue in the Bible’s New Testament, in Matthew
19:4–6: “, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the
beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this
cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the
two of them shall be one flesh?” So then, they are no longer two but one
flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’
(Judges)” Jesus dealt quite directly with the gay marriage issue
when he explained the doctrine of marriage. In Leviticus 18:22, Romans
1:26–27 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 Jesus deals directly with the
homosexual issue, and thus the gay marriage issue. Jesus caused the Bible,
through His prophets, to be written, thus whenever Scripture deals with marriage
and/or the homosexual issue, Jesus is directly dealing with these issues. According to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce
godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but
there’s no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command! K. Ham

koseightyThe Shire, UT

June 25, 2014 2:03 p.m.

One step closer to marriage equality for all citizens of every state. A happy
day. And to think that Utah is at the forefront, pushing this case forward.
:o)

Northern UtahnNorthern, UT

June 25, 2014 1:57 p.m.

Being for something is one thing, being against something is another. I am for
"traditional marriage," too. I'm just not against same sex couples
being allowed to marry. Let everyone (obviously persons of consenting age) who
desires to enter into this social contract do so. It doesn't hurt anyone to
allow gay people to marry the love of their life, or even someone they want to
just share benefits with (like many straight people do, now). It's really
none of anyone else's business who someone decides to marry, so long as
they are able to legally consent.

And to people who keep bringing up
non-discrimination ordinances (the photographer, the wedding cake baker, the
candle stick maker), which prohibit discriminating against gay people because of
personal bigotry...Tough. Non-discrimination ordinances have nothing to do with
marriage, and people made the same arguments when having to serve other
minorities. In any event it has nothing to do with marriage, stop trying to
conflate the two.

FatherOfFourWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

June 25, 2014 1:53 p.m.

Loving v Virginia was ruled in 1964 allowing interracial marriage. But the LDS
church still did not allow it for many years, and some churches still do not
allow interracial marriage to this day. You are not being forced to do anything
that you do not want to do.

KindredMesa, AZ

June 25, 2014 1:45 p.m.

Two people of the same sex making a legal contract never has been and never will
be a marriage, regardless of what the federal government's position on the
matter is. Just like the disagreements about Pluto being a planet, the final
decision doesn't change the reality of the situation. Pluto is a big mass
of ice and rock, no matter what the astronomers call it. Marriage is a union
composed of a man and a woman. No matter what federal judges may say, it
won't change what marriage actually is.

SCfanclearfield, UT

June 25, 2014 1:37 p.m.

Just imagine if the ruling from the Supreme Court comes down in favor of states
being allowed to make marriage law? (That is, if the Court has the guts to even
take a case. Sometimes they wimp out.) Wow. I'd love to see that fight
just because it would be the best reality TV out there. However it will likely
end up as a Roe/Wade blanket law that makes marriage a federal issue.
What's the old saying? "Don't make a federal case out of it".
Well, once again, they did.

DeseretinaMurray, UT

June 25, 2014 1:36 p.m.

Continuing the fight is a poor choice and shows a lack of foresight. The Supreme
Court won't be reviewing the case as there won't be any lower courts
upholding the discriminatory laws passed by the states. Rushing to deny certain
citizens equal access was anything but a conservative move, it was harmful and
counterproductive - in retrospect we should view it as such.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

June 25, 2014 1:33 p.m.

Spangs -

Except for the fact that, once legal, the state will force
churches to change their policies under the illusion of
"non-discrimination".

It is already happening in MA. The LDS
Church was told they could not deny adpoption services to gay couples, even
though they took no state money. The church agreed to counsel any gay couple
that came to their office. None did, but the writing is on the wall.

Fighting against the new im-morality will get you attacked by the government.
It is only a matter of time....

WRKRiverton, UT

June 25, 2014 1:31 p.m.

I wish that some would stop equating this with Civil Rights that the African
Americans had to bo through. There is no way that this is similar. Those
individuals had to go through hardships that the LGBT community can not even
fathom. There is no way that they are similar.

SpangsSalt Lake City, UT

June 25, 2014 1:14 p.m.

When the Supreme Court upholds the multiple appellate rulings in favor of gay
marriage, thousands of gay people across the country will become married in the
eyes of the state. The impact of thousands of gay civil marriages upon the LDS
Church will sum up to exactly nil.

Gay people will still be gay and
the aged Mormon leadership will still be against gay relationships. Luckily,
neither one will be dictating to the other how to live their lives.

Liberty and justice for all.

Henry DrummondSan Jose, CA

June 25, 2014 1:12 p.m.

I believe that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold today's court
decision. I also believe that the people of Utah will act generously toward
their LGBT neighbors and friends just as they did a generation ago during the
Civil Rights Era.